Wall games

In the long term, yes, it's a daft idea [for the Wall Street Journal to go head to head with the New York Times] (The battle for Manhattan, 26 April). But in the long term Rupert Murdoch will no longer be here. It seems that at his age he is throwing everything into overtaking the NYT in the next two to three years so he can exit this mortal world having beaten all his rivals. Might not make business sense, but you can understand his thinking.

krinkle online

• So he wants more readers? I'd suggest getting rid of any planned paywall idea.

scopey online

No question about it

I did [Company's] quiz twice after being directed to it by a friend (Gone in 60 seconds, 26 April). The problem wasn't that it was "non-feminist", it was that it was anti-feminist. The possible answers were ridiculous to the point of parody and yet nothing was learnt at the end - the conclusions were all just middle-of-the-road, non-committal guff. You're talking like someone burnt the first edition of Anna Karenina – the quiz was just rehashed stereotypical rubbish, and wasn't well received. Removing it makes sense from a financial point of view for the magazine. Come on, its removal is hardly a crime against literature, is it?

sittinginthesnow online

Corporation tax

Look at it this way: £210,000 is 1,479 TV licences (Thick skin required, 26 April). A quick question … how many of those licence payers are living at or below the poverty line? I doubt any of them make over £210K a year. How many have the BBC threatened with imprisonment and intimidated to get them to part with £145 a year so that they can watch the state's propaganda machine?

The BBC appears to have learned nothing from the MPs' expenses scandal and are next on the public's hate list … it is time to smash the TV poll tax and sack the BBC fat cats.